Remember the other day, when some of us were in a big disagreement over whether this was a tax increase, or just increased revenues through lowering overall taxes but cutting out “loopholes” so more could not get out of paying their “fair share”?
It was amazing, listening to he rank ignorance from some, who kept claiming that this would be a very good thing. That it would reduce our taxes, reduce the deficit and make more pay who were supposedly getting out of it currently. You know, like those who get deductions for mortgage, charity and deductions for State and local taxes.
But more astounding was the fact that these people kept insisting that this was not a tax increase, it was just a way of increasing revenue while at the same time reducing taxes.
This is like cattle, being fattened for the slaughter house, commenting on how good the food is and how much they have to eat.
I rarely agree with you but this one time you are correct.
If an individual ends up paying more revenue on the same amount of income, regardless of the rate charged, it is a tax increase.
It happened with the Reagan "tax cuts" in the 80s and it was a tax shift and increase to people with higher incomes, but since most tax payers were not in that group, it lowered their individual payments but it spurred the economy, created 20 million jobs and really increased the number of people that were in the "tax pool" and off of unemployment payments.
I went from no revenue payments to the feds for over 10 years with multiple 6 figure income to paying "my fair share" after the tax rates were reduced but the "exemptions and loop holes" were eliminated.
People can argue about the term "fair" {that's an opinion that depends on what you earn} but regardless of the lower % rate of tax, my tax payments to the feds increased and that wasn't an opinion, it was a fact.
The thing I've never been able to understand, is why the demonRATs, that love to spend, don't want lower rates, which provide more revenue, and they could spend even more.
Intellectually, they have to know that it's true, even if philosophically they oppose the concept of lower rates.
I just don't get that paradox.